The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.

1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order for taking the cognizance against the petitioners as well as for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 220 of 1989 Pramod Kumar Bedi v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industirics Limited and Ors. in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bikaner.

2. Pramod Kumar Bedi, Executive Engineer, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna (Procurement Division) Purchase Circle, Bikaner, on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, filed a complaint against M/s. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Limited and Sarvashri Sanjay Kumar Modi, Sunij Gautan and Paras Kuhar for offences under Section 133 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant invited tenders on March 2, 1989, for supply of cement. Several tenders including M/s. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Limited submitted their tenders and after negotiation, the tender of M/s. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Limited was accepted on March 29, 1989 for supply of 15000 metric tones of cement to the complainant. The accused No. 2 to 4, on behalf of the accused No. 1 asked the complainant that if the payment of 23% of the cement is made in advance, which comes to Rs. 50,61,300/- then the supply of the cement will be made. It was, also, agreed that if the complainant made payment of Rs. 50,61,300/- then it will be tip responsibility of the accused No. 2 to 4 for the supply of the cement. In pursuance to this assurance, a bond was, also, executed by the accused No. 2 and 3 on April 10, 1989 which is Annexure-5 on record. Condition No. 3 of the and reads as under:

"Condition No. 3 We have also given three post-dated cheques No. as below dated, with the stipulation that in case on default in supply of the cement, the Governor would be authorised to get these cheques encashed and recover the amount of advance, and we shall keep sufficient amount in our accounts so that these cheques may be encashed.

Cheques No. 1761455 dated 12.5.89

No. 1761456 dated 12.6.89

No. 1761457 dated 12.7.89.

Alongwith this bond, the accused No. 2 and 3 enclosed three deques for an amount of Rs. 16,83,100/- each, dated 12.5.89, 12.6.89 and 12.7.89, drawn at Canera Bank, Jaipur. These cheques were to be adjusted against the advance made by the complainant if the supply of the cement is not made by M/s Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Limited. The accused No. 2 to 4, thus, induced the complainant to make payment of Rs. 50,61,300/- which the complainant made by Demand Draft dated April 13, 1989. As per the bond, the accused No. 1 was to supply 15000 metric tonnes of cement within three months starting from April 13,1989 and in each month supply of 5000 mertic tonnes of cement was to be made, but the accused did not supply the cement as agreed to. As the supply of even a single bag of cement was not made by the accused, therefore, the Junior Engineer Shri Ravidra mathur was sent to Banswara to enquire, about the matter and he reached there on June 3, 1989, and found that the factory of the accused was closed and no cement was available in the factory. He, therefore, met its General Manager and the Production Manager, but no satisfactory reply was given by them. As the accused did not supply the cement as agreed to and the factory was closed, the complainant, therefore, sent the second cheque for encashment to the bank on June, 13, 1989, which was dishonoured and returned by the bank. It was further alleged in the complaint that the accused were in the know of the thing that they are not in a position to supply the cement and inspite of that, they conspired together and induced the complainant to part-with an amount of Rs. 50,61,300/- and the accused gave three post dated cheques of Rs. 16,87,100/- each, which they clearly knew that they would be dishonoured and will not be encashed. Thus, t